-
1.
Efficacy of Montelukast in Allergic Rhinitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Krishnamoorthy, M, Mohd Noor, N, Mat Lazim, N, Abdullah, B
Drugs. 2020;(17):1831-1851
Abstract
BACKGROUND In treating allergic rhinitis, montelukast has the potential to be used as an alternative or addition to an oral antihistamine or intranasal corticosteroid. OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of montelukast in treating allergic rhinitis. METHODS An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from 1966 to 21 January 2019. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing montelukast with placebo or other standard treatments. The primary outcomes assessed were daytime nasal symptom score (DNS) and night-time nasal symptom score (NNS). The secondary outcomes assessed were composite nasal symptom score (CSS), daytime eyes symptom score (DES), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQLQ). The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. RESULTS Fifteen studies of 10387 participants met the inclusion criteria. Montelukast was more effective than placebo in improving DNS (mean difference [MD] - 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.15 to - 0.08; p < 0.001), NNS (MD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.13 to - 0.05; p < 0.001), CSS (MD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.11 to - 0.06; p < 0.001), DES (MD - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.02; p < 0.030), and RQLQ (MD - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.49 to - 0.20; p < 0.001). Oral antihistamine was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.13; p = 0.002), CSS (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07; p = 0.27), DES (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0-0.12; p = 0.040), and RQLQ (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.12; p = 0.430). Montelukast was superior to oral antihistamine in improving NNS (MD -0.03, 95% CI - 0.08 to 0.03; p = 0.330). Intranasal fluticasone spray was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.44-0.99; p < 0.001) and NNS (MD 0.63, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p < 0.001). Combined montelukast and oral antihistamine was superior to oral antihistamine in improving DNS (MD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.27 to - 0.03; p = 0.010), NNS (MD - 0.16, 95% CI - 0.28 to - 0.05; p = 0.006), CSS (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.01; p = 0.070), DES (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.06; p = 0.180), and RQLQ (MD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.08; p = 0.290). Combined montelukast and OAH was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.21; p < 0.001), NNS (MD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.09 to 0.19; p = 0.510), CSS (MD 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.17; p = 0.007), DES (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0-0.36; p = 0.050), and RQLQ (MD 0.07 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.29; p = 0.530). CONCLUSIONS Montelukast is more effective than placebo in treating the overall symptoms of allergic rhinitis while the combined therapy of montelukast and an oral antihistamine is superior to either montelukast or an oral antihistamine alone.
-
2.
Leukotriene receptor antagonists as maintenance and intermittent therapy for episodic viral wheeze in children.
Brodlie, M, Gupta, A, Rodriguez-Martinez, CE, Castro-Rodriguez, JA, Ducharme, FM, McKean, MC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(10):CD008202
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Episodic viral wheeze (EVW) associated with viral respiratory tract infections is a common reason for pre-school children to utilise health care resources and for carers to take time away from employment. About a third of children experience a wheezing episode before the age of five years. EVW therefore represents a significant public health problem. Many pre-school children only wheeze in association with viral infections and in such cases EVW appears to be a separate entity from atopic asthma. Some trials have explored the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as regular (maintenance) or episodic (intermittent) treatment in this context. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy and safety of maintenance and intermittent LTRAs in the management of EVW in children aged one to six years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with pre-specified terms. We performed additional searches by consulting the authors of identified trials, online trial registries of manufacturers' web sites, and reference lists of identified primary papers and reviews. Search results are current to June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group or cross-over (for intermittent LTRA only) design. Maintenance was considered as treatment for more than two months and intermittent as less than 14 days. EVW was defined as a history of at least one previous episode of wheezing in association with a viral respiratory tract infection in the absence of symptoms between episodes. As far as possible, relevant specific data were obtained from authors of studies that included children of a wider age group or phenotype. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was number of children with one or more viral-induced episodes requiring one or more treatments with rescue oral corticosteroids. We analysed combined continuous data outcomes with the mean difference and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). MAIN RESULTS We identified five studies eligible for inclusion in the review (one investigated maintenance treatment, three intermittent therapy and one had both maintenance and intermittent treatment arms) these included 3741 participants. Each study involved oral montelukast and was of good methodological quality, but differed in choice of outcome measures thus limiting our ability to aggregate data across studies. Only primary outcome and adverse event data are reported in this abstract.For maintenance treatment, specific data obtained from a single study, pertaining to children with only an EVW phenotype, showed no statistically significant group reduction in the number of episodes requiring rescue oral corticosteroids associated with daily montelukast versus placebo (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.06, moderate quality evidence).For intermittent LTRA, pooled data showed no statistically significant reduction in the number of episodes requiring rescue oral steroids in children treated with LTRA versus placebo (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, moderate quality evidence). Specific data for children with an EVW phenotype obtained from a single study of intermittent montelukast treatment showed a small, but statistically significant reduction in unscheduled medical attendances due to wheeze (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98).For maintenance compared to intermittent LTRA treatment no data relating to the primary outcome of the review were identified.There were no other significant group differences identified in other secondary efficacy outcomes for maintenance or intermittent LTRA treatment versus placebo, or maintenance versus intermittent LTRA treatment. We collected descriptive data on adverse events as reported by four of the five included studies, and rates were similar between treatment and placebo groups.Potential heterogeneity in the phenotype of participants within and across trials is a limitation of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In pre-school children with EVW, there is no evidence of benefit associated with maintenance or intermittent LTRA treatment, compared to placebo, for reducing the number of children with one or more viral-induced episodes requiring rescue oral corticosteroids, and little evidence of significant clinical benefit for other secondary outcomes. Therefore until further data are available, LTRA should be used with caution in individual children. When used, we suggest a therapeutic trial is undertaken, during which efficacy should be carefully monitored. It is likely that children with an apparent EVW phenotype are not a homogeneous group and that subgroups may respond to LTRA treatment depending on the exact patho-physiological mechanisms involved.
-
3.
[Meta-analysis of leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis].
Lu, Y, Yin, M, Cheng, L
Zhonghua er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Chinese journal of otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery. 2014;(8):659-67
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the treatment outcomes of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) as monotherapy or combined with the second-generation oral H1-histamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), and to provide a basis for optimizing clinical therapeutic strategies. METHODS PubMed,EMBASE, CBMdisc and CJFD databases, retrieving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AR therapy literatures were searched. Based on the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, the related literatures were selected and the quality was evaluated by using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.1 software.For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The forest plots were drawn. The treatment outcomes included daytime nasal symptom scores (DNSS), nighttime symptom scores (NSS), composite symptom scores (CSS), daytime eye symptom scores (DESS), and the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effects of LTRA on seasonal and perennial AR. RESULTS Eleven of clinical RCTs including 14 809 cases of AR patients, aged 15 to 85 years old, were available for Meta-analysis. Montelukast, a drug of LTRA, was primarily evaluated in the study. The results of Meta-analysis showed: (1) Compared with the placebo, montelukast statistically significantly reduced the DNSS,NSS, CSS, and RQLQ scores in patients with seasonal and perennial AR, as well as the DESS in patients with seasonal AR.(2) There were no statistical differences in the improvement of the CSS,DESS, and RQLQ scores in patients with seasonal AR after the treatment by montelukast compared with loratadine, a second-generation oral H1-histamine.(3) Montelukast statistically significantly reduced the NSS, but not DNSS, in patients with seasonal AR compared with loratadine.(4) The combination therapy of montelukast and loratadine statistically significantly improved the CSS compared with either montelukast or loratadine monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Montelukast, a representative drug of LTRA, can be used as first-line therapy for AR, with comprehensive improvement of the nasal and ocular symptoms and the quality of life in AR patients. Montelukast combined with loratadine can significantly improve the diurnal and nocturnal symptoms for patients with seasonal AR, and the curative effect is better than the single use of montelukast or loratadine.
-
4.
Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma.
Chauhan, BF, Ben Salah, R, Ducharme, FM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(10):CD009585
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an anti-leukotriene agent to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3). OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of anti-leukotriene agents and ICS to the use of the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS in children and adolescents with persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite the use of maintenance ICS. In addition, we wished to determine the characteristics of people or treatments, if any, that influenced the magnitude of response attributable to the addition of anti-leukotrienes. SEARCH METHODS We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), which were derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL; and the handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts, as well as the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. The search was conducted until January 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children and adolescents, aged one to 18 years, with asthma, who remained symptomatic despite the use of a stable maintenance dose of ICS and in whom anti-leukotrienes were added to the ICS if they were compared to the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS Five paediatric (parallel group or cross-over) trials met the inclusion criteria. We considered two (40%) trials to be at a low risk of bias. Four published trials, representing 559 children (aged ≥ six years) and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma, contributed data to the review. No trial enrolled preschoolers. All trials used montelukast as the anti-leukotriene agent administered for between four and 16 weeks. Three trials evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS compared to the same dose of ICS alone (step 3 versus step 2). No statistically significant group difference was observed in the only trial reporting participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over four weeks (N = 268 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.91). There was also no statistically significant difference in percentage change in FEV₁ (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) with mean difference (MD) 1.3 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.69) in this trial, but a significant group difference was observed in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR): N = 218 participants; MD 9.70 L/min (95% CI 1.27 to 18.13) and MD 10.70 (95% CI 2.41 to 18.99), respectively. One trial compared the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS to a higher-dose of ICS (step 3 versus step 3). No significant group difference was observed in this trial for participants with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over 16 weeks (N = 182 participants; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.25), nor was there any significant difference in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. There was no statistically significant group difference in withdrawals overall or because of any cause with either protocol. No trial explored the impact of adding anti-leukotrienes as a means to taper the dose of ICS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The addition of anti-leukotrienes to ICS is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids or hospital admission compared to the same or an increased dose of ICS in children and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma. Although anti-leukotrienes have been licensed for use in children for over 10 years, the paucity of paediatric trials, the absence of data on preschoolers, and the variability in the reporting of relevant clinical outcomes considerably limit firm conclusions. At present, there is no firm evidence to support the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to ICS as a step-3 option in the therapeutic arsenal for children with uncontrolled asthma symptoms on low-dose ICS.
-
5.
[What helps for persistent symptoms of asthma during inhalative steroid therapy?].
Kroegel, C
Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946). 2011;(42):2130
-
6.
Inhaled corticosteroids or montelukast as the preferred primary long-term treatment for pediatric asthma?
Jartti, T
European journal of pediatrics. 2008;(7):731-6
Abstract
According to current guidelines, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred primary long-term treatment for asthmatic children of all age groups, but leukotriene receptor antagonists can be considered to be an alternative treatment for mild persistent asthma. In this article, all randomized double-blind efficacy studies comparing the long-term (>4-week) treatment using a leukotriene receptor antagonist with an inhaled corticosteroid in asthmatic children were critically reviewed. In school-aged children, five reports with an adequate study design were available. All of these studies compared montelukast with inhaled fluticasone. The meta-analysis of the two main outcome measures, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (weighted mean difference, 4.6% predicted, 95% confidence interval: 3.5-5.5) and asthma control days (respectively, 5.6%, 4.3-6.9) demonstrated the superiority of fluticasone over montelukast. Many other clinical and pulmonary outcomes also consistently showed that low-dose inhaled fluticasone was more effective than montelukast in the long-term management of mild to moderate persistent asthma. A more favorable response to fluticasone over montelukast was associated with more severe disease or markers of allergic inflammation. About a quarter of patients benefited more from montelukast than fluticasone. In children under school age, no comparative studies were available. However, long-term montelukast treatment was found to be effective in placebo-controlled studies in asthmatic children aged >2 years. These findings support the present international recommendations for ICS as the preferred first-line controller therapy for mild to moderate persistent childhood asthma. If montelukast is selected as a monotherapy and asthma is not adequately controlled within 4-6 weeks, the treatment should be discontinued and the preferred medication initiated.
-
7.
Montelukast in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Grainger, J, Drake-Lee, A
Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery. 2006;(5):360-7
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis is common. This systematic review outlines the evidence regarding montelukast in allergic rhinitis and provides a meta-analysis of its efficacy. The evidence suggests that montelukast does reduce nasal symptom score by 3.4% (95% CI: 2.5% to 4.2%) when compared with placebo. Montelukast is not as effective as topical nasal steroids or antihistamines and should therefore be regarded as second line therapy. When used, montelukast should be used in combination with an antihistamine.
-
8.
Clinical safety and tolerability of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, in controlled clinical trials in patients aged > or = 6 years.
Storms, W, Michele, TM, Knorr, B, Noonan, G, Shapiro, G, Zhang, J, Shingo, S, Reiss, TF
Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2001;(1):77-87
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist administered orally once daily for treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children. A comprehensive analysis of safety data from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with montelukast has not been previously reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS A pooled analysis of safety data from 11 multicentre, randomized, controlled montelukast Phase IIb and III trials and five long-term extension studies was performed. A total of 3386 adult patients (aged 15-85 years) and 336 paediatric patients (aged 6-14 years) were enrolled in the trials; 2031 adults received montelukast for up to 4.1 years, and 257 children received montelukast for up to 1.8 years. Summary statistics comparing incidences of adverse events among treatment groups were calculated. RESULTS The overall incidence of clinical and laboratory adverse events among montelukast-treated patients, both adult and paediatric, was similar to that among patients receiving placebo. There were no clinically relevant differences in individual adverse events, including infectious upper respiratory conditions and transaminase elevations, between montelukast and placebo groups. Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred with similar frequencies during placebo, montelukast and inhaled beclomethasone therapy. No dose-related adverse effects of montelukast were observed in adults treated with dosages as high as 200 mg per day (20 times the recommended dose) for 5 months. This tolerability profile montelukast observed in clinical trials has been generally reflected in the post-marketing safety experience seen to date. CONCLUSIONS These data indicate a tolerability profile for montelukast similar to placebo during both short-term and long-term administration, even at doses substantially higher than the recommended clinical dose of 10 mg once daily for adults and 5 mg once daily for children aged 6-14 years.